2016 Postmortem

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

160. We can too. They started about 20 years ago

Tue May 10, 2016, 11:36 PM

May 2016

If we can convince Congress to spend a lot of money starting right now, in about a decade and change we can have that too. Until then, reducing fracking means increasing coal, and vice versa.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you support fracking, or coal? [View all] Recursion May 2016 OP

Solar Electric Monk May 2016 #1

Head in the sand Recursion May 2016 #2

My parents already have solar at their cottage, and it works great. Totally off the grid. Electric Monk May 2016 #5

And that's awesome, particularly at low densities Recursion May 2016 #9

What part of "solar is already cheaper than coal" are you having trouble understanding? nt Electric Monk May 2016 #16

Why does the cost matter? Recursion May 2016 #27

Wind and hydro are not practical in my area of the Southwest. We have wind, but JDPriestly May 2016 #51

Which are great arguments for not building a megacity on a desert Recursion May 2016 #63

Very true. And since we already have a megacity here, we need to switch to solar and JDPriestly May 2016 #68

Could be worse: Dubai Recursion May 2016 #70

Amazing! How do they keep cool? JDPriestly May 2016 #73

It's a mix. There's a lot of air conditioning and (even more) heat pumps Recursion May 2016 #75

You cannot replace heat in the winter in apartment buildings- Hillary's TTIP fracking deal Baobab May 2016 #132

We may yet develop new materials that will substitute for the materials we now use for JDPriestly May 2016 #56

The problem they have is they haven't figured out yet how to profit from it unapatriciated May 2016 #134

What do they use for heating? Silver_Witch May 2016 #122

One might think providing allowing for merely two solutions to a complex problem is the very illustr LanternWaste May 2016 #138

The plan is to ship most of the LNG & Coal to foreign markets, not for domestic consumption anyway! TheBlackAdder May 2016 #143

Five minutes in, and two DUers already don't care about the environment Recursion May 2016 #3

False choice inchhigh May 2016 #79

Real choice. I mentioned them. In 10-15 years they can supply our power generation needs Recursion May 2016 #80

We built the most powerful military inchhigh May 2016 #112

Exactly. Juicy_Bellows May 2016 #137

Stupid poll. Loudestlib May 2016 #117

Check the results again and be embarrassed ... beedle May 2016 #139

And yet the results prove it Recursion May 2016 #140

Improve the environemnt by supporting beedle May 2016 #141

Yep. You have a choice of one or the other for the next decade. Which do you choose? Recursion May 2016 #142

Really? "Actual environmentalists"? beedle May 2016 #146

The refuse option is a catch all for when someone puts up dumb-assed options with zero nuance. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #168

We have waited so long, now we need action Silver_Witch May 2016 #4

Great idea Recursion May 2016 #7

Yes. Walking would not only help our environment. It would make inroads on our obesity JDPriestly May 2016 #47

Blame Judge Doom Recursion May 2016 #71

Thanks for raising this issue, but the way. It is so important for us to be thinking JDPriestly May 2016 #74

At least for the next 7 weeks I still live at sea level in the tropics Recursion May 2016 #76

Same here in Southern California. JDPriestly May 2016 #77

Coal is MUCH worse for the long-term health of the environment. NT Adrahil May 2016 #99

Well, it's a "which knee do you want to get shot in?" question Recursion May 2016 #110

I can agree with that, but.... Adrahil May 2016 #118

So you choose fracking to sustain us during the trasistion? Silver_Witch May 2016 #121

Based on what I know now.... yes. But.... Adrahil May 2016 #124

Neither. I support most hydro, with more building up and usage of wind. uppityperson May 2016 #6

I support them too, and if we spend a lot of money, in about 15 years they could be enough Recursion May 2016 #8

No, I do not. Do you? uppityperson May 2016 #10

It's one or the other Recursion May 2016 #11

No, I do not. Do you? uppityperson May 2016 #12

It's not a "yes or no" question, it's a "which one" question Recursion May 2016 #13

Which do you choose? uppityperson May 2016 #14

Fracking, because groundwater contamination isn't as bad as greenhouse gases and particulates Recursion May 2016 #17

Fracking and greenhouse gases A Little Weird May 2016 #95

Not so sure about that womanofthehills May 2016 #162

How about supporting increasing our efforts to switch to renewables maybe hundreds JDPriestly May 2016 #38

Yup. Agschmid May 2016 #113

There are more options than you provided. thesquanderer May 2016 #156

The 4th Largest Economy In The World Just Generated 90 Percent Of The Power It Needs From Renewables Electric Monk May 2016 #163

Hydro is good if you live in an area with a lot of water, but in Southern California, it JDPriestly May 2016 #40

I support Nuclear. As a scientist-in-training it is baffling to me that we do not use it more JonLeibowitz May 2016 #15

Nuclear definitely has a role in our future, I agree Recursion May 2016 #18

Yep, but I hope you don't take from this that our candidates are equal on the issues. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #26

We support different candidates? Recursion May 2016 #31

No I don't think we support different candidates. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #41

Tell that to the people in Portland, downwind and downstream from Hanford. JDPriestly May 2016 #32

And particulates from coal kill millions of people every year (nt) Recursion May 2016 #37

+1 JonLeibowitz May 2016 #43

Let's hope. We need to invest in moving toward more sensible technologies. JDPriestly May 2016 #59

True. Especially in highly populated areas like Los Angeles in which we have problems JDPriestly May 2016 #54

I grew up downwind of the Salem NJ nuclear plant. I was scared as a kid. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #135

Agree!!! n/t RKP5637 May 2016 #103

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #19

But if you oppose fracking you're supporting coal Recursion May 2016 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #21

No, you're burying your head in the sand Recursion May 2016 #23

We have to allow that we are constantly making new discoveries. JDPriestly May 2016 #29

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #53

We also should not have fracking in Southern California because of the proven increased JDPriestly May 2016 #60

Those are perfectly valid reasons to oppose fracking, which means using more coal Recursion May 2016 #62

Coal is not good here because of the fact that due to the mountain ranges that JDPriestly May 2016 #65

For the long term, definitely Recursion May 2016 #66

We already have some solar and we have wind farms out in the Eastern part of the state JDPriestly May 2016 #69

Right now, California gets 5.5% of its energy from hydro, 6.4% from coal. 20.1% is from renewables Bluenorthwest May 2016 #119

Why can Germany do it but not us? womanofthehills May 2016 #159

We can too. They started about 20 years ago Recursion May 2016 #160

Probably fracking of those two, but fracking certainly isn't good ... Onlooker May 2016 #22

Who the hell said fracking was "good"? Recursion May 2016 #24

No one said it's good, but ... Onlooker May 2016 #61

I met a man on a train who builds power plants. JDPriestly May 2016 #64

I live in Southern California and would like to have a lot more solar. JDPriestly May 2016 #25

Solar cells require fairly rare metals that are oxidized by the power generation process Recursion May 2016 #30

Excellent Graphic. Never seen that one before. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #28

The rejection rate from power generation and transport is stunning Recursion May 2016 #35

Yeah, that jumped out at me, too. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #42

Or (ironically) equal to the entire output of coal and natural gas, roughly Recursion May 2016 #44

Which is why I suspect decentralized generation schemes will have to be part of the answer Warren DeMontague May 2016 #52

Hugely agree with the decentralization Recursion May 2016 #57

LLNL does great research (not going to say anything else to avoid identifying myself) JonLeibowitz May 2016 #48

That's been the line- Fusion is 20 years away. Always... 20 years away. Warren DeMontague May 2016 #55

I mean, the nuclear research that LLNL is so far from production I wouldn't put a timetable on it. JonLeibowitz May 2016 #58

I support wind, sun, geothermal and tidal, Blue_In_AK May 2016 #33

And for the 20 years it takes to build those capacities out? Recursion May 2016 #34

Since you're giving me a binary question, Blue_In_AK May 2016 #50

And that took them 15 years to do, didn't it? Recursion May 2016 #82

I'm against both of them and so are a lot specialists and experts. Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #36

Too bad! Which do you want us to use? Recursion May 2016 #39

There is a way. Use less energy and put more renewables into the mix Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #49

Yep. And in those 10 years we need power generation Recursion May 2016 #67

I don't agree with your framing of the question. Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #78

Too bad, because that's the actual question we face, today Recursion May 2016 #83

Short term thinking is what got us down this road. You have to look ahead, decades ahead. Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #84

Should have listened to this guy 40 years ago. senz May 2016 #45

Yep. I wish we had (nt) Recursion May 2016 #46

You make the ad nauseum declaration that the choice is coal or fracking... wundermaus May 2016 #72

Because the choice is coal or fracking and pretending we can magically build out renewables tomorrow Recursion May 2016 #81

This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson May 2016 #144

It's not either/or. Depends on region. pat_k May 2016 #85

False choice and it completely ignores... NeoGreen May 2016 #86

Solar and wind. JonathanRackham May 2016 #87

And you have a pretty graphic. Android3.14 May 2016 #88

And the moon landing took almost a decade Recursion May 2016 #89

I'm surprised you didn't include nuclear, lol. B Calm May 2016 #90

I mentioned it. Same problem as renewables: it would take a decade or so Recursion May 2016 #91

Why is it America is not ready? I remember a time when America led the world, now B Calm May 2016 #93

Same reason we weren't ready to go to the moon in 1962? Recursion May 2016 #94

So in the mean time we should invest all our energy in supporting gas and coal? B Calm May 2016 #100

It's that or see a massive drop in available energy Recursion May 2016 #101

Maybe Trump is right when he says we are not great anymore. . B Calm May 2016 #102

Nah. I live in the third world right now, remember Recursion May 2016 #104

5 other countries are leading the way to renewable energy. B Calm May 2016 #106

Burlington, Vermont disagrees. They are now at 100% renewable energy for it's residents. B Calm May 2016 #164

Exactly: it took them about 20 years to get there Recursion May 2016 #166

I've reread that article and for the like of me can't figure where you pulled that 20 years out of, B Calm May 2016 #167

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #92

You don't have an option for reducing personal energy usage hellofromreddit May 2016 #96

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #97

Actually, I do run my computer womanofthehills May 2016 #161

Well, like MOST things, it's complicated. Adrahil May 2016 #98

Interesting how many don't get the question. Agschmid May 2016 #105

In retrospect the language is ambiguous Recursion May 2016 #107

Thread is worth the time to read it, thanks for posting. Agschmid May 2016 #108

Who's that between the Zakim bridge and the BU Citgo Sign in your sig? Recursion May 2016 #109

Kiiara Agschmid May 2016 #111

Love it, thanks! Recursion May 2016 #114

What's missing from your OP verbiage is a timeline, you seem to be saying 'coal or fraking forever' Bluenorthwest May 2016 #120

No, I specifically said "now" and mentioned a decade+ time frame (nt) Recursion May 2016 #123

And yet your polling verbiage is 'do you support coal or do you support fracking' and Bluenorthwest May 2016 #125

I think both will be needed for another twenty years My Good Babushka May 2016 #115

Thanks, that's a really good answer (nt) Recursion May 2016 #116

Whichever one Clinton likes is clearly the best. n/t leeroysphitz May 2016 #126

Well, there's a nice false dichotomy, courtesy of the American Petroleum Institute lagomorph777 May 2016 #127

Wind, solar, and ocean currents are the future. The sooner the better. -nt- NorthCarolina May 2016 #128

What about a both box? n/t doc03 May 2016 #129

No I do not support the TTIP fracking deal thats going to push millions out on the street Baobab May 2016 #130

Neither. LWolf May 2016 #131

nope, enough said. unapatriciated May 2016 #133

Magic. Sparkly May 2016 #136

You're kidding right? One does not need to support those things to let them keep going. Xyzse May 2016 #145

Why didn't you put an option for "neither"?? pdsimdars May 2016 #147

Because reducing fracking means more coal gets mined and burned Recursion May 2016 #148

Well, unless you focus on switching . . like we switched all those auto factories into making planes pdsimdars May 2016 #149

Which, as I said in the OP, could pay off in a decade or so Recursion May 2016 #150

WTF is a quad? tularetom May 2016 #151

A quadrillion BTUs, or roughly an exajoule Recursion May 2016 #154

Its been many years since I knew this stuff but I recall that a million BTU's = 300 kwhr =/- tularetom May 2016 #155

With the caveat that thermodynamics was about a decade ago, 5 Zottajoules, or 5000 quads. Recursion May 2016 #157

Solar. Wind Matariki May 2016 #152

Neither. basselope May 2016 #153

Not enough options, this is a push poll. CentralCoaster May 2016 #158

Neither. We built the bomb in @ 3 years iirc. Our WWII military in half that time riderinthestorm May 2016 #165